What if Hitler had taken over Stalingrad?

Originally posted by YourForever
reply to post by TheMythLives

 

If the war was prolonged, then it would of been Germany that got nuked. They would of taken Stalingrad if they had waited for the Russian winter to pass. It was a logistical nightmare.

If the War went on we would not have used nukes on Germany...UK,France and the rest of allied Europe would have not allowed it...

Hitler only lost the war because he split his forces, was fighting on two fronts. If he had postponed Babarossa for a few years and had fully developed the nukes then he would of taken Russia no problem and we the allies would have not been able to stop him. Remeber it was the Germans developing all the rocket technolgy, jets and the bomb, they were years ahead of everyone else. The USA only developed its armed forces because of the attack on PH the 1st 9/11. If that event did not happen then there would of been no super power USA but as this was all planned years before the war even broke out the outcome was known anyway, Germany would loose.

reply to post by TheMythLives


This is the plane that would have held off the allies until they could Nuke Germany. Even then, these jets were built in underground factories carved into the mountains. They remind me of the A-10 warthog.





It was armed with twin guns that could be used for tank-busting and in a dogfight... It was also faster than any planes the Allies had.

Armament: 2 x 20mm MG 151 cannons OR 2 x 30mm MK 108 cannons




[edit on 28-12-2008 by Exuberant1]

Hitler should have,

- Focused bombing campaigns during the Battle of Britian on RAF airfields and radar stations instead of bombing cities. He was convinced he could terrorize the British into surrender, which failed. Sucsess would have denied The US a staging spot.

- Had his Tank battalions closer to Normandy instead of spread out over Europe.

- Consolidated his scientific/military weapon designers. Instead of having many different programs working on a bunch of projects without sharing information.

- Not wasted resources building massive naval ships.

- Expected a larger resistance during Operation Barbarossa, as opposed to the cake walk he convinced himself it would be.

- Provided his troops in the USSR with proper clothing and weapons suited to the cold.

- Let his generals control the war, not himself. At the very best he was a amateur tactican. He had little experience.

He had no choice in attacking the USSR. They needed the oil fields. The invasion was poorly constructed. I don't think just capturing Stalingrad would have had that much of an impact. It would have prolonged the war a year or two. The US had the bomb and they would have just destroyed Germany. I don't think he could have ever won. The American A-bomb was too far ahead of anyone else's program. He wouldn't have been able to catch up.

Awesome answers folks, keep up the great work. Very informative

Hitler most likely never would have taken over Stalingrad and he must have known this.
Certain moves were being made just to draw in other forces.

Not only did they make a huge mistake by going in during the winter (they had no choice at that point, though. same with the bombing of pearl harbor. stupid decision but it must have been done to pull the US into the war) they were outgunned in Stalingrad by the shear number of Russian tanks.

It was a dumb move.

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


Yep, it was a dumb move, but I guess when your filled with pride and war hungry it clouds your mind. Hitler obviously did not think this decision through or he honestly felt that they could take Stalingrad.

World War two was only stopped so early because of a sucession of miracles.

1st-Stalingrad. As mentioned, he would be able to slow down supply lines EARLY. The war slowed down momentum and made it harder for Hitler to capitalize on his resources. It would have been a bloody and long battle to secure the USSR, but he could have done it.

I read a book called Fatherland, very interesting premise. It was on if Hitler had won in Russia. What would have happened is that he won on the Eastern front and secured resources in France. He was able to stop D-Day from pushing back the Allies before they took Paris.

The authors way he put it after the war ended is that everyone dropped out of the war, and diplomatic relations were terminated. Hitler returned France and Italy, but keeps all lands in Prussia, Baltic states, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, and Russia, while later he was fighting American-backed Soviet guerrillas in the Ural Mts....

It could have played out like that.

reply to post by magicmushroom


The Germans were farther from the bomb than most realize. The physicsts that knew what to do had left for the allies. The Germans also had no idea of what the bomb would do and would check for radiation after a blockbuster hit.
If the Germans had taken Stalingrad, they would have still faced Zhukov and still been surrounded in a destroyed city with no way out, no supplies, and several months of winter left. Likely Hitler would have had to try to extricate them and had to pull troops from somewhere. With the timer running on Paulus, would he have sent a large enough army in time and would Zhukov been able to still overwhelm it with a pincer?

reply to post by pteridine


Very good post, I am sure about if he would of gotten troops there on time. But I do not think that he would have been able to hold the lines.

Hitler was a pygmy military strategist.

Okay, he has Stalingrad, now what? His ass would still be thrown off Africa 3 months later, the western allies would have continued to build, AND he would have millions of very pissed off Russians still to contend with.

Winning Stalingrad would not have done anything to lessen the troops needed on the Easter front. Russia would have never sued for peace after this loss, it would have just given them more reasons to fight and win. Uncle Joe would have seen to that.

Hitler looked at points on a map, not the big picture. Stalingrad was important in name only. He lost the war the second he attacked Russia. A debatable point, look at history. Better Generals and leaders than Hitler tried and failed just as miserably.

reply to post by ignorant_ape


Well sorry but I like better the way I said it

Your comment is much appreciated but still doesn't affect mine.

reply to post by Telos

You said that we'd be speaking and writing German. Why so? Ignorant Ape provided reasoning for his conclusions.
Many posters think Stalingrad would be a pointless victory, given that Zhukov's armies were in the process of surrounding Paulus. The Germans controlled all but a small area of the city, anyway, and had so destroyed it that the mounds of rubble took away any advantage they had with mechanized equipment. Controlling the entire city in winter would have produced the same outcome. The battle kept the Germans in place using up supplies and men until Zhukov arrived. Whether they had the entire city or not is moot. They had no supplies and no way to run.
I think that the only way to discuss this issue would be to put a timeline on the capture of Stalingrad. If the Germans had won before winter, would they have consolidated their position or blitzed their way to disaster? After the snow started and the supply lines were cut off, the only way they could have moved was with a rescue army -- a big rescue army. Even then, going anywhere, forwards or backwards, would be difficult until late spring after the spring thaws and floods had dried up and the roads became passable by heavy equipment.
My conclusion is that a winter victory would have done them no good and Zhukov would have won almost as easily as he did. An early fall victory would have changed things but those changes would have depended on whether Hitler would have allowed consolidation of the position or demanded more progress. I'd guess that he'd demand progress but which way? Down the Volga to meet with another army and head for oil or continued eastward expansion so that defeat would be on some other patch of frozen ground?

reply to post by ignorant_ape


But the whole purpose of this thread is a speculation on what would have happened if General Paulus had taken Stalingard.

Just think of the panic in British Command if Hitler had taken Stalingard, secured the regional oil fields. It is not hard to speculate on Hitler's next move. South to the Arabian oilfields. That action would have taken the pressure off Rommel, as the British would have had to divert resources to protect the Arabian oil fields, and with the pressure off Germany from the East for the time being and Rommel, some of the neutral Arab states may have considered that becoming allies with Germany would further some of their aims of independance

reply to post by Freedom ERP


Good post, the Arab states, I think personally think would have fought back with much conviction. I mean areas like Afghanastan, if I remember correctly, no one has ever successfully invaded Afghanastan. Its such a strong hold that, the arab nations may have allowed the allies to aid them in these areas to slow Hitler down.

reply to post by TheMythLives


I cannot find my sources at this time, but I was under the impression Hitler had attempted to take advantage of the anger Arabs had toward British Imperial interests, and wanted to offer some kind of protection/co-operation?

reply to post by TheMythLives

I mean if he had taken it over, holding Stalingrad would have opened up lines of supply to critically needed oil.

It would have also allowed the Germans to anchor their southern lines along good geographical ground. At the very least, it would have extended the war, forcing the soviets to pay an even heavier cost to regain territory.

Germany still needed to capture the oilfields, at Maikop and Baku. The primary reason for taking Stalingrad was it's importance as a centre of war industry and communications. Most of the oil needed for the Soviet war economy was shipped from the Caspian to railheads on the Volga.

Due to the topography of the rail system with poor lines of communication running north to south war materials were moved by barge upstream and then onto the newly founded factories near the Urals using the better rail lines that traversed Russia east to west.

The decision to attack the industrial and the communications chokepoint of Stalingrad was reinforced by the operational need to secure the Nickel, Manganese, Coal... deposits in the Donbas(Eastern Ukraine). The OKH saw that holding the western bank of the Volga was vital in this aim, and that having the Volga and the Don as defensive obstacles relieved the pressure on the whole of the Wermacht in the expanse of southern Russia.

Added to this is the opportunity that arose in successfully getting a bridgehead on the eastern bank of the Volga allowing a break out of mobile units either north in a wide sweep to Moscow or south cutting the oilfields off.

Your right the war would have been drawn out, the effect to the Soviet war economy can only be guessed at, it would of delayed Soviet ascendency in manpower and material. Taking the oilfields in my book would have put the Soviet war industry into terminal decline and in that you can see an Axis victory over the Soviet Union.

At the most, with a secure fuel supply, it would have been possible for the Germans to hold off the allies in western Europe, at least long enough for some of their "superweapons" to come into play.

I'm not sure a superweapon short of a nuclear device would have made much difference in the end. Obviously with the Soviets out of the war then it would change everything.

If Hitler could have pushed England out of the war before 1945, Germany might have been able to hang on to more European territory, and allowed Hitler to throw all his forces at the Soviet Union. If Hitler and his subordinates had been cunning enough to utilize dissatisfaction with the USSR, he woud have raised more manpower to fight them and caused the USSR considerable trouble behind its own lines.

When you look at the secret diplomacy between Nazi Germany and Britain it's evident that Hitler always wanted a reconiliation with Britain, so both countries could set about the real threat bolshevism. Britain could have sued for peace on favourable terms.

Failing to foster Ukrainian nationalism was an error on the part of the Nazi regime.

So basically I guess the real question is would the war have ended differently if Hitler had taken Stalingrad?

It would of prolonged the war, but the outcome would have been the same, if the Axis had defeated the Soviet Union then the war would have gone very different, in a worst case scenario for the Allies it would have come down to a stalemate.

Originally posted by carslake
Germany still needed to capture the oilfields, at Maikop and Baku. The primary reason for taking Stalingrad was it's importance as a centre of war industry and communications. Most of the oil needed for the Soviet war economy was shipped from the Caspian to railheads on the Volga.

Excellent post carslake, you spoil us! My knowledge of Barbarossa is more in terms of secret diplomacy and the various intelligence operations, you seem to have a very good grasp of the tactics involved, can I pick your brains a little?

Given the fact that prior to the commencement of Barbarossa Stalin was happily supplying Germany with all the oil that she needed, how critical were those supplies to the German war effort, let alone the Soviets?

I have studied Barbarrossa to some extent, and strategically I can’t find a legitimate reason why it failed, up until the point that it did. Hitler seemingly did know what he was doing and seemed, contrary to popular opinion, in the early days at least, attuned to his Generals. Where was the critical error, in your opinion? Did von Mannstein’s relief operation ever have any chance at success?

Originally posted by carslake
The decision to attack the industrial and the communications chokepoint of Stalingrad was reinforced by the operational need to secure the Nickel, Manganese, Coal... deposits in the Donbas(Eastern Ukraine). The OKH saw that holding the western bank of the Volga was vital in this aim, and that having the Volga and the Don as defensive obstacles relieved the pressure on the whole of the Wermacht in the expanse of southern Russia.

Do you know if the Soviets were supplying Germany with those minerals as well as oil prior to the invasion? If so, the Germans really were shooting themselves in the foot weren’t they?

Originally posted by carslake
Added to this is the opportunity that arose in successfully getting a bridgehead on the eastern bank of the Volga allowing a break out of mobile units either north in a wide sweep to Moscow or south cutting the oilfields off.

As I recall, the Soviets main strategy involved a almost incessant supply of cannon fodder, they didn’t have any great technical advantage, just a ‘disposable force’ of seemingly unending supply. Would you say that the Soviets advantage was more in their ‘anticipation’ of the Germans intentions, as opposed to any other form of advantage. Given the fact that the so-called genius of modern espionage, Gehlen, was by then insitu why do you think there is little sign that the notion of a ‘leak’ within the High Command was not better explored ?

Originally posted by carslake
Your right the war would have been drawn out, the effect to the Soviet war economy can only be guessed at, it would of delayed Soviet ascendency in manpower and material. Taking the oilfields in my book would have put the Soviet war industry into terminal decline and in that you can see an Axis victory over the Soviet Union.

So, internationally, a quick resolution to the ‘Great Patriotic Wars’ was required…would you say that was a fair assessment? That, economically, it was better that Germany be sacrificed than Russia, in the eyes of some?

Originally posted by carslake
I'm not sure a superweapon short of a nuclear device would have made much difference in the end. Obviously with the Soviets out of the war then it would change everything.

But once the US was in the war, with Germany and the Soviets obliterated the power vaccumn would have been vast. Britain could never have permitted such a total or single domination of the Eurasian Heartland either. Britain didn’t have the resources to manage that task alone and I feel that it would not have trusted to the US that level of control either. It comes down to then, in Churchill’s mind, the lesser of two evils. Given that those Soviet expanses offer some of the richest farmland known to man, I doubt there is a world leader who would ever contemplate contaminating them intentionally. That would surely mean doom to us all!

Originally posted by carslake
If Hitler could have pushed England out of the war before 1945, Germany might have been able to hang on to more European territory, and allowed Hitler to throw all his forces at the Soviet Union. If Hitler and his subordinates had been cunning enough to utilize dissatisfaction with the USSR, he woud have raised more manpower to fight them and caused the USSR considerable trouble behind its own lines.

When you look at the secret diplomacy between Nazi Germany and Britain it's evident that Hitler always wanted a reconiliation with Britain, so both countries could set about the real threat bolshevism. Britain could have sued for peace on favourable terms.

Britain was offered highly favourable terms, repeatedly, they were all rejected out of hand seemingly, though that was obviously not the actual case. It is clear from recent publications and archival releases that Hitler did believe that Britain would consider an alliance should he attack Russia. It is likely that that was the agreement that Hess brought with him when he flew to Scotland at the beginning of May 1941. Or at least part of the information that he brought with him. When Hitler ordered Operation Sealion to stand down, he did so without cypher, he signalled loud and clear to Churchill that he did not want to take Britain. This Churchill already knew of course, Hitler laid out his intentions in Mein Kampf, he wished Germany to ‘walk hand in hand’ with Britain, the great land empire and the great sea empire together in world domination. Poor Hitler never stood a chance against Churchill, the king of ‘by any means necessary’.

Originally posted by carslake
It would of prolonged the war, but the outcome would have been the same, if the Axis had defeated the Soviet Union then the war would have gone very different, in a worst case scenario for the Allies it would have come down to a stalemate.

There is a story, I don’t know how true it is, that upon hearing the news that Germany had attacked Russia, Anthony Eden slapped his thigh and leapt to his feet, declaring that ‘we’ had won the war. Interesting!

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


Awesoem post, very detailed and I enjoyed the history lesson as well. *Slaps thigh* we have won the war!

reply to post by KilgoreTrout

Excellent post carslake, you spoil us! My knowledge of Barbarossa is more in terms of secret diplomacy and the various intelligence operations, you seem to have a very good grasp of the tactics involved, can I pick your brains a little?

Given the fact that prior to the commencement of Barbarossa Stalin was happily supplying Germany with all the oil that she needed, how critical were those supplies to the German war effort, let alone the Soviets?

thanks KT.

My understanding is sketchy, once Romania was secured as a member of the Axis then the Soviet oil was in my opinion not critical to the German war economy, as the fighting intensified during the war the industrial output could never be increased to meet the demand without the possession of major oilfields, if you look at German military strategy in 1942 it shifted from the military and political and it was on the whole concerned with the economic situation.


Successful operations in North Africa and the Trans-Caucus became imperative. The Soviet war economy would have crashed eventually without the Baku oilfield. It shows in that the capacity for German industrial output was always greater than the Soviet Union, the constant struggle for material resources prevented Germany from out producing the Allies.

I have studied Barbarrossa to some extent, and strategically I can’t find a legitimate reason why it failed, up until the point that it did. Hitler seemingly did know what he was doing and seemed, contrary to popular opinion, in the early days at least, attuned to his Generals. Where was the critical error, in your opinion? Did von Mannstein’s relief operation ever have any chance at success?

Where to begin, in one sentence inefficient command and decision making body leading to lack of feasibility, contingency, dynamism, realism, vision, planning...... competing objectives with no singular strategy(ies) on how to defeat the Soviet Union.

The same errors all the way down the line from the onset of Barbarrosa to operations Fall Blau and Edelweiss, culminating in Zitadelle.

The schism began before Operation Typhoon when leading Generals and Hitler reached an impasse over what to do after the encirclement of Budenny at Kiev, there was no depth of planning no clearly defined strategy on how to defeat the Soviet Union it was a death ride they just crashed headlong into Russia.

I don't think Mannstein cared about getting shot for disobeying an order and his decision making on the tactical and the local strategic level was amongst the best.

Well after Stalingrad he made an attempt to ingratiate himself with Mannstein and Guderian, they conveyed to Hitler the situation and what should be done to reverse the recent disasters for the Axis. From what I can make out Guderian was made Inspector General of Armoured Forces and von Mannstein became the effective commander of the Army groups in southern Russia. It ended up, too little too late for the the Axis, Guderian retired in disgust being unable to make effective progress and von Mannstein struggled on under resourced for what was asked of him.

The relief operation Operation Wintergewitter was feasible and should have been successful, however the default unit with the strength to mount the relief operation the 1st Panzer Army which was still in the Caucus. The 4th Panzer Army a closer with nearly equal combat efficiency despite losses was holding open the gap at Rostov for the German forces in the Caucus. The relief operation was delayed for 2 weeks it should have gone in at the beginning of December however it started on the 19th, I wish I had the time to go into the myriad of failures and opportunities lost that led to it been unsuccessful.

Do you know if the Soviets were supplying Germany with those minerals as well as oil prior to the invasion? If so, the Germans really were shooting themselves in the foot weren’t they?

Yes they were supplying them I have no information on the actual quantity I know they were stockpiling the exports from the Soviets, they were desperate to get possession of economic targets in the east Ukraine(hard metals).

In the long term it was inevitable for Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union to go to war. The Soviets had the raw materials and manpower and a long term plan to spread their control by any means into the neighbouring countries.
My date for World War 2 breaking out is the Soviet-Japanese Border Conflict May '39 Khalkhyn Gol, Mongolia. It can always be said that Nazi Germany was born out of a reaction to the Soviet Union, the leadership of both countries recognised the need for war.

My opinion is the Soviets laid the ground by demonstrating their intent of forcing new order on the west by overt or covert means, the comintern was a declaration of war and it was received as such.

As I recall, the Soviets main strategy involved a almost incessant supply of cannon fodder, they didn’t have any great technical advantage, just a ‘disposable force’ of seemingly unending supply.

It was a battle of attrition on the whole the Axis never had the manpower to get involved in prolonged struggle with the Soviet Union both sides knew the longer the war went on the probability of a Soviet victory increased.

More often than not the Soviets attacked on poor terrain using the same frontal tactics with composition and strength given away by signals intercept. The FHO never had to break Soviet battle field cyphers they just analysed the growth in signals traffic as the forces mustered behind the lines preparing for the impending attack.

When they made operational errors they failed to learn from those mistakes and this shows all the way through the command structure, the pre-war purge of the Red Army officer corps and the ensuing lack of talent and experience crippled their efficiency. Gripped by fear they had no flexibility to overcome tactical problems that confronted them.

I can't be bothered to look up the exact figure but off the top of my head 18 million combat casualties for both combatants is staggering, fascinating and also sickening at the same time.